Re: lions, chimps and sticks

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: tears"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "lions, chimps and sticks"

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
: herwin@mason2.gmu.edu (HARRY R. ERWIN) writes:

: >Lotka-Volterra is simplistic; so simple that it has never been a valid
: >model when compared to populations in nature. Although it has been used as

: It is simplistic. But then if the abundance of other prey was
: what saved the little wimps, then I'd guess there was some kind
: of steady-state wrt to the predators (of the wimp :-) and the
: other prey. Small scale oscillations probably occurred, but
: the prey population could have stayed abundant and shielded the
: proto-humans. I'm not sure if this is what you were saying.

Steady states don't exist in ecologies. They're nonautonomous in a deep
sense.

--

Harry Erwin

Internet: herwin@gmu.edu 

Home Page: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~herwin (try a couple of times)

PhD student in comp neurosci: "Glitches happen" & "Meaning is emotional"

• Next message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: tears"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "lions, chimps and sticks"